Search

On the surface, a gathering held for young research faculty last week at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory was a clear expression of determination by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to help them compete for grants. The agency fears that continued Congressional budget cuts, combined with the growing number of scientists who work later into life, could drive younger researchers away from academe, leaving university labs dangerously understaffed in coming decades. As sunshine bathed the seaside lab's elegantly manicured grounds, some 200 young professors from 90 research universities sat indoors for hours, taking full advantage of the opportunity to probe NIH experts on the fine points of grants with names like R01, R21, and K23. But even as they offered advice to young researchers, key conference organizers acknowledged that they weren't sure how far the NIH should go to help. There's no question that NIH is very concerned about the fact of the increasing age of "independence" in science. But what steps NIH should take "is a huge debate" inside the agency. The clearest point of agreement is on the underlying problem: Federally financed research has repeatedly proved its value to almost everyone except members of Congress. A study last year by Battelle Memorial Institute calculated that the $3.8-billion that the U.S. government spent on the Human Genome Project from 1988 to 2003 had already driven $796-billion in economic growth. Almost the entire project was repaid by a single year of taxes from the genomics-enabled industry in 2010, the report said. Nevertheless, Congress has cut the budget of the NIH, the leading supplier of federal money for basic research at U.S. universities, by about 20 percent relative to inflation since 2003. That's brought renewed attention to the longstanding fact that older, more experienced, and better-connected scientists have a built-in advantage when seeking their share of the $26-billion in support for external research that the NIH distributes each year. A total of 375 researchers, mostly those with seniority and experience, now hold more than $5-million apiece in NIH grants. More than two-thirds of the NIH's main category of research grants are being won by those who have already won another grant. The worry is that such daunting odds for their younger colleagues, at a time of shrinking NIH budgets, could scare off a generation of promising new researchers.

This article reports that at Rollins College, a liberal-arts institution, professors are paid to get away for overseas travel so that their students will learn to be more globally minded. The college's president, Lewis M. Duncan, has pledged to send every faculty and staff member with teaching duties abroad once every three years. Since 2006, 128 Rollins employees, about two-thirds of those eligible, have used the $3,000 grants to conduct individual research projects or to travel internationally with faculty-led groups to destinations including China, Ecuador, and Tanzania. Rollins is among a growing number of colleges across the country that are trying to create more-global campuses by cultivating a faculty of internationalists. Indeed, a recent report by the American Council on Education pointed to the expansion of support for faculty members to study or conduct research abroad, or to lead overseas programs, as a bright spot in colleges' otherwise uneven efforts at internationalization.

This article reports that despite the doubts about education financing, Israel's innovative companies spun off by universities show no signs of slowing down, as new drugs and other discoveries have produced huge incomes. Thirty years ago, two researchers at Hebrew University set about to make a better tomato. One that was firmer, stayed fresher longer, and could be harvested more easily. Haim D. Rabinowitch and his doctoral supervisor, Nachum Kedar, genetically engineered such a seed in 1973, setting off a worldwide revolution in tomato cultivation. It also made their university a lot of money. The technology-transfer arm of Hebrew University, known as Yissum, earned $51-million last year in royalties, partly from the seeds it licenses to two Israeli companies. Those companies, Hazera and Zeraim Gedera, which were eventually sold to Vilmorin and Syngenta, also employ many graduates of the university's agricultural school. The tomato-seed revolution, which has helped bring Hebrew University about $1-billion, is not even Yissum's biggest moneymaker these days. Drugs for Alzheimer's disease and cancer also bring in millions.

When Robert W. Van Kirk released a study in January about selenium contamination in trout streams in southeastern Idaho, he expected some flak from the influential phosphate-mining industry. He did not expect to feel pressured by the administration of his own institution, Idaho State University, where he is an associate professor of mathematics. His research, paid for by a local environmental group, indeed raised the hackles of mining interests. Executives of one major mine operator, the J.R. Simplot Company, called the university's leaders about the study just days after it came out. The provost, Robert A. Wharton, responded by asking a vice president to investigate Mr. Van Kirk and his collaborator. That inquiry found no irregularities, but Mr. Wharton disclosed to the company the name of the journal where the research was to be published before Mr. Van Kirk could object that it might compromise the peer-review process. The university leaders defend their actions, but experts on academic freedom say the situation, while hardly black and white, reflects the growing high-stakes challenges for higher education, and especially for academics and administrators at state universities, when public-interest science comes into conflict with powerful political and economic interests.

There are two main settings for puzzle solving in higher education: graduate programs, with professors and both graduate and postdoctoral students; and predominantly undergraduate institutions, with professors and students. Research programs at large universities are well-oiled puzzle-solving machines. Graduate students there work long, hard hours in the laboratory, under the supervision of postdocs and professors. Students at predominantly undergraduate institutions, on the other hand, can rarely devote more than 10 hours a week to research during the academic year, what with course work; extracurricular activities, like sports; jobs; and other commitments. In this article, the author describes "guerrilla puzzling," a model for research that should be considered by faculty members at predominantly undergraduate institutions to help them achieve both their research and pedagogical goals. It is cost-efficient, its time span is appropriate for undergraduate participants, and it can produce significant results. It is a great way to get students involved in research at an early stage in their academic careers.